PDA

View Full Version : mid-major Harbaugh beats USC!



Boogs
October 6th, 2007, 10:04 PM
For you Torero fans your former coach does well with real athletes as well!

BigApp
October 6th, 2007, 10:07 PM
The ONLY way to keep this from being moved to OTHER SPORTS:

Appalachian now has the nations longest home winning streak!!

rmutv
October 6th, 2007, 10:14 PM
For you Torero fans your former coach does well with real athletes as well!

So mid-major players aren't real athletes, either? Are you beginning to see why it's near impossible to take your rankings with any seriousness?

mvemjsunpx
October 6th, 2007, 10:15 PM
In my opinion, this is a much bigger upset than App. St. beating Michigan.

walliver
October 6th, 2007, 10:16 PM
The ESPN announcers at half-time of the Missouri-Nebraska game are now calling this the "Greatest Upset in College Football History"


... how quickly things change at ESPN.

T-Dog
October 6th, 2007, 10:20 PM
The ESPN announcers at half-time of the Missouri-Nebraska game are now calling this the "Greatest Upset in College Football History"


... how quickly things change at ESPN.

We're still winning that ESPY for "Biggest Upset of the Year"!

SeattleGriz
October 6th, 2007, 10:54 PM
In my opinion, this is a much bigger upset than App. St. beating Michigan.


Sorry, I can't agree with that. Stanford has the same amount of scholarships as USC AND, they play USC every year.

App had to travel big time, and do it with 22 less scholarships.

Apps win is still the biggest upset.

By the way, I don't understand why people are getting all sweaty over all the upsets. It is called parity, and it has finally made its way into the FBS ranks.

grayghost06
October 7th, 2007, 12:32 AM
Sorry, I can't agree with that. Stanford has the same amount of scholarships as USC AND, they play USC every year.

App had to travel big time, and do it with 22 less scholarships.

Apps win is still the biggest upset.

By the way, I don't understand why people are getting all sweaty over all the upsets. It is called parity, and it has finally made its way into the FBS ranks.
From a public perception standpoint, ASU is still the bigger upset. From a reality standpoint, Stanford beating USC is bigger. Appy was a 25 point underdog; Stanford was a 39.5 point underdog. We FCS fans clamor all the time about how "top FCS teams are better than mid to bottom FBS teams". Well, you can't have it both ways. If a two time defending DIV I-AA champion ( who is likely better than Stanford) beats the # 5 team in the country, then a worse team (Stanford) beating a higher ranked (#1) ranked team would trump that.
Again, despite the fact that ASU is likely a better TEAM than Stanford, the public would view Appys win as bigger. The win was also historic, in that no FCS team had ever beaten a ranked FBS team.


























]

SeattleGriz
October 7th, 2007, 12:37 AM
From a public perception standpoint, ASU is still the bigger upset. From a reality standpoint, Stanford beating USC is bigger. Appy was a 25 point underdog; Stanford was a 39.5 point underdog. We FCS fans clamor all the time about how "top FCS teams are better than mid to bottom FBS teams". Well, you can't have it both ways. If a two time defending DIV I-AA champion ( who is likely better than Stanford) beats the # 5 team in the country, then a worse team (Stanford) beating a higher ranked (#1) ranked team would trump that.
Again, despite the fact that ASU is likely a better TEAM than Stanford, the public would view Appys win as bigger. The win was also historic, in that no FCS team had ever beaten a ranked FBS team.


Great point, but I am still sticking with the fact that Stanford gets to play USC every year and has them scheduled as such. Therefore, they have the distinct advantage of figuring out how to beat USC year in and year out.

GreatAppSt
October 7th, 2007, 12:56 AM
From a public perception standpoint, ASU is still the bigger upset. From a reality standpoint, Stanford beating USC is bigger. Appy was a 25 point underdog; Stanford was a 39.5 point underdog. We FCS fans clamor all the time about how "top FCS teams are better than mid to bottom FBS teams". Well, you can't have it both ways. If a two time defending DIV I-AA champion ( who is likely better than Stanford) beats the # 5 team in the country, then a worse team (Stanford) beating a higher ranked (#1) ranked team would trump that.
Again, despite the fact that ASU is likely a better TEAM than Stanford, the public would view Appys win as bigger. The win was also historic, in that no FCS team had ever beaten a ranked FBS team.


30 - 40 point FBS dogs win every couple of years. Now come again, when was the last time a ranked FBS was beaten by an FCS team? That's Rrriiiiight, NEVER.xcoffeex

grayghost06
October 7th, 2007, 01:08 AM
Great point, but I am still sticking with the fact that Stanford gets to play USC every year and has them scheduled as such. Therefore, they have the distinct advantage of figuring out how to beat USC year in and year out.

Another point I neglected to add was that USC and Stanford actually do butt heads in recruiting battles and do go after the same caliber of player. They ( Stanford) have had football success in the past with great coaches and players, have a beautiful campus w/ a brand new stadium. They have an outstanding academic rep and play in a top BCS conference. The reality is that USC wins the great majority of those battles, but Stanfords' roster is still chock full of players that most FCS schools would covet. USC and Stanford players are much closer in " high school football pedigree" than App States' players were to the Michigan players. It just goes to show that raw talent isn't everything. Coaching and teamwork still play an important role.

mvemjsunpx
October 7th, 2007, 04:58 AM
I still say this upset is bigger than App St. over Michigan, at least in terms of football ability.

App. St. is a better team than Stanford.
Michigan is a worse team than USC (though it didn't necessarily look that way before the season).

USDFAN_55
October 7th, 2007, 10:57 AM
Great point, but I am still sticking with the fact that Stanford gets to play USC every year and has them scheduled as such. Therefore, they have the distinct advantage of figuring out how to beat USC year in and year out.

But this was Harbaugh's first year coaching against USC. He hasn't had multiple shots at trying to figure USC out.

BigApp
October 7th, 2007, 11:15 AM
30 - 40 point FBS dogs win every couple of years. Now come again, when was the last time a ranked FBS was beaten by an FCS team? That's Rrriiiiight, NEVER.xcoffeex

well, it has happened ONE time...:D :D :D :D :D

lucchesicourt
October 7th, 2007, 11:18 AM
One thing about Michigan being ranked that is misleading, and that is did Michigan EARN such a ranking or were they given such a ranking just because they were Michigan. I am not taking anything away from Appy's big upset, I am just questioning whether early season rankings really mean anything. There is a point in the season where you EARN your ranking, and the first 4 games of the year are NOT it.

GOTOREROS
October 7th, 2007, 11:43 AM
For you Torero fans your former coach does well with real athletes as well!


I guess the NFL likes "fake athletes" like Josh Johnson.......xrolleyesx

It's obvious you have never seen USD play, and that you base your "rankings" on nothing more than personal feelings. Thanks for the laughs! xrotatehx

BigApp
October 8th, 2007, 12:47 AM
One thing about Michigan being ranked that is misleading, and that is did Michigan EARN such a ranking or were they given such a ranking just because they were Michigan. I am not taking anything away from Appy's big upset, I am just questioning whether early season rankings really mean anything. There is a point in the season where you EARN your ranking, and the first 4 games of the year are NOT it.

so, what did USC do to earn the #1 ranking then?

lucchesicourt
October 8th, 2007, 05:09 AM
Who has USC beaten, really no one yet. It is still early. Like I said, the first 4 games are NOT the time to do rankings. They had played 4 games and were ranked number one. IMO it is still too early to rank them But, USC lost game #5, hence should not be ranked #1. As they are not today. Did I make a fuss about them being the number one ranked team. I don't think so. My book was still open as to who the number one team is. That is why I do not vote on Ags. It is ridiculous to try and guess who is the number one team until at least 5 games are played. What was Michigan's record when you beat them as a number 4 ranked team? 0-0? Boy, with a record like that, they reallly earned their number 4 ranking. Right?. Especially, with how well they have played since then. They are a very underrated team wouldn't you say. It is obvious to all, they were deserving of such a high ranking. What's up with the pollsters who dropped them from the #4 spot. So, they lost a few games, what's the big deal, they should still be #4.

DUPFLFan
October 8th, 2007, 08:25 AM
I guess Drake's win over Illinois state (who has 63 more scholarships) is nowhere in the picture huh...

X-Factor
October 8th, 2007, 08:50 AM
Who has USC beaten, really no one yet. It is still early. Like I said, the first 4 games are NOT the time to do rankings. They had played 4 games and were ranked number one. IMO it is still too early to rank them But, USC lost game #5, hence should not be ranked #1. As they are not today. Did I make a fuss about them being the number one ranked team. I don't think so. My book was still open as to who the number one team is. That is why I do not vote on Ags. It is ridiculous to try and guess who is the number one team until at least 5 games are played. What was Michigan's record when you beat them as a number 4 ranked team? 0-0? Boy, with a record like that, they reallly earned their number 4 ranking. Right?. Especially, with how well they have played since then. They are a very underrated team wouldn't you say. It is obvious to all, they were deserving of such a high ranking. What's up with the pollsters who dropped them from the #4 spot. So, they lost a few games, what's the big deal, they should still be #4.

Well, for one they humiliated Nebraska @ their place. A lot of people had USC as a lock for the title game in January, and for good reason.

lucchesicourt
October 8th, 2007, 02:06 PM
And USC is not the only team to route Nebraska this year. So, are they really that good? I have questions.

lucchesicourt
October 10th, 2007, 07:11 AM
Stanford and USC are not even close in actual recruiting standards. So, USC has an advantage in getting quality players as they are working from a larger pool of athletes than Stanford. Academically many of the SC players would not even be allowed to attend Stanford, as most would not meat the academics that Stanford requires for entry. My guess is that when it comes to a player that has the option to attend either school, Stanford would win the competition for the player. Why? A degree from Stanford means a hell of a lot more than a degree from SC. I am not saying SC is bad, but let's face it it is NOT cream of the crop like Stanford. And, most smart people realize that few make it to the next level, and a degree from Stanford goes a lot farther in this world.